Had kind of an epiphany while reading one of this week's articles;  previously, I had been thinking of literature as something which was about human minds, which made it worthy of study in this class.  Of course, this literature is also a product of human minds, which I fully realized today.  Literature is worthy of study in a neurobiological context because it is a unique behavior produced by the human nervous system - no other animal writes prose.  It's interesting to think about the cognitive mechanisms that interact to produce such a complex institution - writing is a fairly recent development, so it's unlikely that it is an adaptive trait itself.  Maybe a small realization, but I find the subject much more interesting from that perspective.

The 'neuro-turn' piece was rather buzzwordy, but from what I could gather the authors think that the arts and humanities, along with popular culture, are beginning to turn more toward neurological explanations for things.  It also doesn't seem like they're happy about it.  I can see where they're coming from, but I think such a transition is only natural.  Yes, neuroscience is still in it's infancy with regard to what we can explain about the brain, but our knowledge of the mind will only increase with time.  Soon, I think neurobiology and it's implications may be the best way to explain nearly anything that humans do, including the arts and humanities.  After all, these things are products of the human mind (as explained above).

I thought the Brown article about the multiple characteristics and symptoms of ADHD was great - I feel like often people think of ADD as being something characterized only by hyperactivity and high distractability, but there are obviously other facets which the article explained well.  It would have been nice if the article had gone a bit more into the biological basis of ADHD, however.  It's characterization of executive functions was also highly useful to me, as I had not previously fully grasped what this suite of operations was when we talked about it during the memory section (I think that was what we talked about... I may well be wrong.)

I also thought the article about the recent prevalence of hyper attention as opposed to deep attention was interesting, especially the part about how human brains are very plastic in their development.  It's kind of disturbing to think about how media has shaped the new generation of children in western nations - possibly for the worse (as many seem to think), although the article describes the change as something that is only different from the norm rather than objectively worse.  It's hard to tell, but we may find out in the future when the generations of developing nations who grew up without media begin to compete with our own media-raised children.  Such observations in the future may lead to a new set of parental guidelines.  (although the article did caution against using neurobiological findings to shape educational strategies, this is different in that it would be relying upon behavioural observations.)

A Curious Case of  a Dog in the Night Time  is an interesting book because it gives us a chance to perceive the world from the vantage point of an autistic person.  One thing that I noticed was that Christopher's lack of social skills and the problems stemming from his disability all came about as a result of interacting with people without autism; I wonder if perhaps autistic people would get along with each other with far less incident.  Christopher also seemed to be a very productive and intelligent individual outside of the social realm.  It was actually very calming to read this book...  Generally my mind is filled with all sorts of distractions but reading from the Christopher's linear perspective seemed to clean things up a bit.  As a thought experiment, I think if you compared two separate populations - one composed solely of autistic individuals, and one composed solely of normal individuals, over time, the autistic population would outpace the other in terms of technological advancement.  Of course, this is purely hypothetical and based solely upon the description of one high-functioning autist as given by a man who does not suffer from the condition.  However, if we run with this assumption, the conclusion we reach is that social skills, although necessary at some point during our ancestry, have now outlived their usefulness and only serve to hold us back as a species.  Even if this was true, I could never see social aptitudes being eliminated from humanity - they are too important in the process of finding a mate.

On an unrelated note, one problem I did have with this book was that it wasn't written by someone with autism - the description of an autistic mind given by Mark Haddon can therefore not be completely accurate.  He did work with autistic people earlier in his career which does give him some insight, but I'm not sure how much he can know, considering the difficulty autistic people have with communication.

The notion that humans have a genetically determined preference for grammar is an interesting one.  A specific sequence of molecules present in the DNA of every human determines the structure of all man's language, which ultimately influences the way we communicate with each other and perceive the world.  The implications of such a notion are intriguing.  If there's a genetic basis for the structure of language (and reality), then it was shaped by natural selection.  If it was shaped by natural selection, it can be further altered through natural or artificial selection.  Although it would be highly interesting to see what the effects of such selection would be on human populations (entire new ways of seeing the world?) such experiments would have problems with feasibility and ethics.  Maybe, even without direct intervention, such changes have been occurring over the course of human history, gradually changing the way humans interact with each other and the universe at large.  This idea could possibly be tested through some sort of wide analysis of modern texts with more ancient ones (or at least it could in a hundred thousand more years, if we're still around).

 Another interesting area of investigation would be the more rudimentary languages of animals such as whales, who some say have dialects and cultures (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-evidence-sperm-whale-culture.html).  Do whales have common and inherent rules of language, similar to humans?  Do we even share some of these rules?  It would be fascinating to see how far back the structure of human language began to emerge, and what creatures we share this structure with.

A genetically determined skeleton of language also spells bad news for anyone who hopes to make contact alien species at any point.  Ignoring glaring biological differences that are likely to get in the way of any interaction between human and extraterrestrial, and the vast unlikelihood of running across anything with the sort of intelligence needed to communicate with humans, if they had a language it would likely be so fundamentally different from our own that we would have no chance of translating to or from it.

Damsio's distinction between emotion and feeling is an interesting one because it wouldn't have made any sense to say such a thing before we could measure the physiological aspect of feeling in the brain (or other internal organs).  The outward manifestation of feeling and the inward experience of feeling are the same thing if you can't verify the inward experience of anyone else.  This causes me to wonder what other aspects of the human experience may be further dissected and clarified in the future when technology gives us the capability; the relationship between subconscious and conscious thought comes to mind.

In the same vein, I thought Damiso's explanation of the way emotion precedes thought to be very interesting.  As he states, most people think of this relationship as going in the other direction.  However, Damiso's explanation makes sense when considered from the evolutionary framework he provides.  In fact, I thought all of his evolutionary and physical explanations of feeling were great.  It's amusing to think about how all of human culture is built upon evolutionary traits and developed responses that may not even be valid in our current state of technological advanceent.  Persuasion is just the result of a few misused (according to their original functions) mechanisms and structures present in the brain of Jane Austen, along with any other novel or work of art.  Some of these behaviors may even be harmful, as Damsio brings up (racism; anger; etc.).  He even states at one point "We can learn to disregard such reactions and persuade others to do the same".  The implication of what he's saying is that feelings are really only holding us back as a species.  This is interesting for two reasons:  it's probably true, which is funny given that feelings were obviously something that helped humans succeed in the first place, and it brings up the question of whether feelings or reaching humanity's full potential is more important.  There's nearly nobody (apart from a few abnormal individuals) who would give up all of their unreasonable and unproductive feelings in order to be a more productive member of society.  Of course, humans only have an affection for human feeling because we have feelings, in an odd self-fulfilling way.  If aliens came by with a massive feeling-amputation ray and immediately rendered all humans incapable of feeling, nobody would miss it (by definition).  We'd probably develop teleportation and begin to colonize other planets within the year.  The question is, without emotion, would anything people did even matter anymore?  Without feeling, the answer is no, at least under the current definition of meaning.  It should be noted that bacteria do just fine operating strictly according to biological tenets with no feelings or even nervous systems to get in the way.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the value in Jane Austen.  Her novels are often touted as  pieces of classic literature (as evidence by our "Penguin Classics" editions), but the plot seems like a Victorian soap opera and from what I hear all of Austen's plots are pretty much the same.   You could find droves of similar romance novels at any library, although Austen's writing is probably better.  Locution, not message.  Austen may be able to write eloquently, and this may be one of the reasons why she's highly regarded.  It just doesn't seem like there's any new ideas to be found in her writing, any underlying social commentary, or any sort of deeper message.  Just some woman pining after a prince charming who eventually comes round.   Maybe I'm not reading deep enough into her prose - but maybe others are reading too deeply into her prose.  This is one of the main problems I have with literary analysis in general.  Of course it's possible to read into Austen's writing and find a deeper meaning, but it's possible to read almost any meaning into any piece of prose if you try hard enough.  Of course, since Austen is dead, it's impossible to verify any deeper reading of her work (unless the message is obvious), but it's safe to assume that most deep interpretations of her prose will not have been her intent.

In relation to the other readings we did on empathy and consumption of fiction, I think Austen's work may even be a little harmful.  Assuming that reading fiction improves empathy (I know that it wasn't proven since there was only correlation), the 'empathy practice' you get from a novel would be dependent on the minds of the characters.  Of course, since these are only simulated minds, they do not reflect the way real people would act, but only how the author thinks such people would act.  If you are gaining your notions of how to interact with others and how they feel about things from Austen, you're probably going to be incorrect in some areas.

I find myself echoing the sentiments of the kind of person who thinks that violent media makes you more aggressive, or that watching porn makes you sexist.  As far as I know, these things haven't been proven...  So maybe I'm wrong about Austen.  Possibly, just seeing how Austen thinks the minds of other people work is beneficial - even if it's a bit flawed.  Obviously everyone's empathy is going to be a bit off, so there really is no objective standard of empathy to compare hers to, meaning there's value in reading any fiction - gaining insight into anyone's view of how other people work.

Effects on society brought about by literacy

Humanity’s greatest natural asset, the one that has allowed us to succeed in a way that no other animal can surpass, is our intelligence and capacity for cooperation.  It is then only logical that a human technology which amplifies both of these traits would drive us to even greater success, as did the invention and subsequent spread of written language.  However, before it was near-universally adopted, literary technology had its critics –- as will anything that causes change in human societies.  Ultimately, however, reading and writing became a fundamental part of civilization as we know it, and new forms of communications technology will continue to do so as they appear.  

One fundamental building block of modern society is the sort of displaced memory provided by written language. 

 Of course, the changes brought about by literacy did not come without trade-offs.

Others have launched criticisms against reading based more upon the fear of change than biology.

Despite the fact that written language deviates our brains from their natural capabilities, our technology-augmented minds have allowed us to build a subjectively successful global society; Whether or not these augmentations have been objectively beneficial does not matter, as they have become a vital part of every modern sophisticated society.  From this, we can posit that new technologies of communication, such as the internet, will become a vital part of future societies, despite current criticisms and fears of the changes they bring about in our brains.